Newpipe: What does "oldest subscription update" mean?

[ReekyMarko]

Just updated and I seriously can't figure out what is the meaning of this phrase

[Stypox]

The time whithin which the data collected about a subscription is considered up-to-date

[opusforlife2]

It _is_ a bit ambiguous. How about "Feed last updated: x duration ago"?

[Stypox]

Better

[ReekyMarko]

Agreed. Maybe even just "Last updated: x"

[opusforlife2]

Corrected in Weblate.

[Stypox]

Great, thank you @opusforlife2, and thank you @ReekyMarko for the report ;-)

[mauriciocolli]

@ReekyMarko: Just updated and I seriously can't figure out what is the meaning of this phrase

It was that way because of how the feed feature was built:

All streams are saved centrally, in one place. A subscription has "links" to every stream related to it, and similarly, a group has "links" to the related subscriptions.

As a side-effect, when you update a subscription in one group, you're actually updating the streams related to it, so it reflects in all groups that have that subscription as part of it.

You can notice one thing that can happen in this design: subscriptions are not necessarily equally updated in a group. So the "oldest subscription update" refers to the least updated subscription that is part of that group.

I didn't like the way this was phrased (maybe just "oldest subscription" would be better...), but nobody suggested anything better or complained, so it was kept this way.

---

Now, regarding the change to "Feed last updated", I'm not entirely sure about it.

By using this new phrase, it's implied that the last update was when the user actually pressed the update button. Also, updating from another group will lead that statement to not be entirely true because, now, it will contain newer items than it had when it was last updated.

What do you think?

[opusforlife2]

The intuitive way of thinking would be exactly this:

the last update was when the user actually pressed the update button

and this is what I inferred as well. But the fact that streams are updated in every feed is interesting. Was it easier/better to program it this way?

Coming to the point, I don't think this would cause any significant issues. People will normally put different channels in different groups. Even if they do put a channel in multiple groups, "feed" here still refers to the collection of all channels that belong to that feed, so if one or two channels happen to be updated from another feed, the feed itself mostly isn't updated.